Ms Indo Omakase PVT LTD Gurugram Through Its Director Jay Agarwal vs. Exercise And Texation Depatment

Held

The Court held that the powers to hear an appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act would not be subject to the strict filing within the prescribed time, and such a restriction would not deprive a person of the right to claim a hearing of an appeal by filing a writ petition before the High Court for condonation of delay. The Court reasoned that the GST Act provisions are for providing relief to businessmen, and if delays occur due to business affairs, the businessman should not be rendered remedy-less. The cancellation of GST registration has a cascading effect, making it essential for an efficacious remedy to be available. Accordingly, the Court condoned the delay of 21 days in filing the appeal, exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Appellate Authority was directed to rehear the appeal and decide it on merits. The Court found no reply from the respondents to be required as the issue was purely legal and the petitioner had already submitted the pre-deposit amount.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Indo Oma Akase Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The petition challenged an action by the Excise and Taxation Department, Gurugram. The specific order or action under challenge is not detailed, but it pertains to a GST matter. The procedural history indicates that the petitioner sought condonation of delay in filing an appeal. The respondent, the Excise and Taxation Department, accepted notice. The Court considered its previous judgment in CWP No. 27468 of 2023 & other connected cases, titled Vasudeva Engineering vs. The Union of India and others, decided on 24.10.2024, which dealt with similar issues.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Appellate Authority's power to hear an appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act is strictly limited by the prescribed time period, or if delay can be condoned in appropriate circumstances, particularly when a writ petition is filed before the High Court. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the provisions of the GST Act are intended to provide relief to businessmen, and if delay in filing an appeal occurs due to business affairs, the businessman should not be left without a remedy. They relied on the principle that a businessman should not be precluded from filing an appeal due to unavoidable delays, especially when the cancellation of GST registration has a cascading effect. They also relied on the Supreme Court's decision in M/s Tecnimont Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Punjab and others, 2019 INSC 1054. Respondent's contention: The respondent, represented by the DAG, Haryana, submitted that the case may be decided on merits in terms of the judgment passed by the Court in Vasudeva Engineering India’s case (supra). No specific argument against condonation of delay was recorded.